Call for bicycles to be licensed
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Wiltshire gang jailed for 'half UK's caravan thefts'
Next: Compare the Market dot com are pants.
From: delboy on 15 Mar 2010 12:15 On 15 Mar, 16:03, Clive George <cl...(a)xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > On 15/03/2010 15:07, delboy wrote: > > > On 15 Mar, 14:52, Clive George<cl...(a)xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > > >> Isn't it generally regarded as a bit of a cockup to land in a field? > >> Something you really shouldn't be doing at all regularly. > > > Staying airborne in a glider depends on there being rising air > > (thermals etc). Sometimes due to cloud cover, or a change of airmass, > > the thermals stop working and then the only way is down! If there is > > not an airfield nearby it has to be a farmer's field. > > Yes, I know that. That doesn't affect what I said - isn't it regarded as > being a bit of a cockup if you do have to do that? Certainly the glider > instructor I know was a bit disparaging of people who did. > > How often do you put it in a field? Probably about 90 times in a 29 year career, but I take part in gliding competitions where you are expected to set off in far from ideal conditions. Don't take any notice of your gliding instructor friend. He must have either been a World Champion (although even they land out sometimes), or one of those pilots who would wet himself if he ever got out of gliding range of his home airfield. Derek C
From: Clive George on 15 Mar 2010 12:22 On 15/03/2010 16:15, delboy wrote: > On 15 Mar, 16:03, Clive George<cl...(a)xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: >> On 15/03/2010 15:07, delboy wrote: >> >>> On 15 Mar, 14:52, Clive George<cl...(a)xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>> Isn't it generally regarded as a bit of a cockup to land in a field? >>>> Something you really shouldn't be doing at all regularly. >> >>> Staying airborne in a glider depends on there being rising air >>> (thermals etc). Sometimes due to cloud cover, or a change of airmass, >>> the thermals stop working and then the only way is down! If there is >>> not an airfield nearby it has to be a farmer's field. >> >> Yes, I know that. That doesn't affect what I said - isn't it regarded as >> being a bit of a cockup if you do have to do that? Certainly the glider >> instructor I know was a bit disparaging of people who did. >> >> How often do you put it in a field? > > Probably about 90 times in a 29 year career, but I take part in > gliding competitions where you are expected to set off in far from > ideal conditions. > > Don't take any notice of your gliding instructor friend. He must have > either been a World Champion (although even they land out sometimes), > or one of those pilots who would wet himself if he ever got out of > gliding range of his home airfield. He was neither - he was just a sensible, experienced pilot. I don't think he did competitions though. Older than you, and stopped a couple of years ago.
From: Nick Finnigan on 15 Mar 2010 13:47 Adrian wrote: > > But, please, stop confusing that "liking" for a "need" - and accept that > an inevitable corollory of that liking is going to be increased running > costs - due to the fact that their inherent design requirements mean they > tend to be big, heavy, thirsty vehicles - which inevitably means > increased taxation due to the fact they emit more CO2 and use more fuel - > after all, it's not exactly a secret that CO2 has been used as the basis > for vehicle taxation for a decade, and that fuel has been taxed for one > hell of a lot longer. Although I think Chelsea Tractor Man claims to emit less CO2 than your 2.0 petrol car, and a Legacy of the same age would be much the same.
From: Adrian on 15 Mar 2010 14:25 Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> But, please, stop confusing that "liking" for a "need" - and accept >> that an inevitable corollory of that liking is going to be increased >> running costs - due to the fact that their inherent design requirements >> mean they tend to be big, heavy, thirsty vehicles - which inevitably >> means increased taxation due to the fact they emit more CO2 and use >> more fuel - after all, it's not exactly a secret that CO2 has been used >> as the basis for vehicle taxation for a decade, and that fuel has been >> taxed for one hell of a lot longer. > Although I think Chelsea Tractor Man claims to emit less CO2 than your > 2.0 petrol car <shrug> I wouldn't know. There's no official CO2 figures for my car.
From: Clive George on 15 Mar 2010 14:31
On 15/03/2010 18:25, Adrian wrote: > Nick Finnigan<nix(a)genie.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they > were saying: > >>> But, please, stop confusing that "liking" for a "need" - and accept >>> that an inevitable corollory of that liking is going to be increased >>> running costs - due to the fact that their inherent design requirements >>> mean they tend to be big, heavy, thirsty vehicles - which inevitably >>> means increased taxation due to the fact they emit more CO2 and use >>> more fuel - after all, it's not exactly a secret that CO2 has been used >>> as the basis for vehicle taxation for a decade, and that fuel has been >>> taxed for one hell of a lot longer. > >> Although I think Chelsea Tractor Man claims to emit less CO2 than your >> 2.0 petrol car > > <shrug> I wouldn't know. There's no official CO2 figures for my car. Though if it did, it would happily demonstrate the lack of a 4x4 tax. I see JNugent has now dropped his claim there was one. |